Tesla CEO Elon Musk has fulfilled his promise to provide the driving logs from the recent Model S test drive by The New York Times -- and it looks like John Broder has some explaining to do.

Broder, the NYT staff writer that took a Tesla Model S for a test trip up the east coast this winter, published a final article that details a failed trip and the many troubles the car gave him along the way.

However, Musk became suspicious of Broder's claims when so many other journalists had made similar or more tasking trips in the Model S.

"To date, hundreds of journalists have test driven the Model S in every scenario you can imagine," said Musk. "The car has been driven through Death Valley (the hottest place on Earth) in the middle of summer and on a track of pure ice in a Minnesota winter. It has traveled over 600 miles in a day from the snowcapped peaks of Tahoe to Los Angeles, which made the very first use of the Supercharger network, and moreover by no lesser person than another reporter from The New York Times. Yet, somehow John Broder 'discovered' a problem and was unavoidably left stranded on the road. Or was he?"

Musk dug up the driving logs from Broder's trip, and earlier this week, he said he would share these discoveries after claiming that Broder had "faked" his article. Now, Musk has come equipped with the goods and it's not looking good for Broder.

Musk first addressed Broder's claim that the Model S ran completely out of energy and required a flatbed truck to tow it in Connecticut. Musk said the car never, at any time, ran out of energy.

Broder's article also mentioned that the Model S fell short of its projected range "on the final leg" of the trip, which was 61 miles total. On his final charge before embarking on this last leg of 61 miles, the logs show that Broder disconnected the charge cable when the range display showed only 32 miles. However, despite not fully charging the car, it managed to travel 51 miles -- and still wasn't completely out of charge when the flatbed truck was called for a tow. Also, during that last leg of the trip, Broder drive right past another charging station where he could have given the Model S another boost. But Musk said Broder "constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline."

Musk also said that Broder never set the cruise control to 54 MPH or drove at 45 MPH, as stated in the article. Instead, he drove at speeds of 65-81 MPH for a majority of the trip.

He also had the cabin temperature at 72 degrees, and when he mentioned turning it down in the article, he had actually turned it up to 74 degrees.

Musk further noted that Broder's charge time on the second stop was 47 minutes, and not 58 minutes as stated in the article's graphic. If Broder didn't turn off the Supercharger at 47 minutes and went for the full 58, it would have been "virtually impossible" for him to run out of energy so quickly.

Speaking of charging, the driving logs also showed that Broder recharged the car to 90 percent on his first stop, to 72 percent on the second Supercharge and to 28 percent on the last leg -- signficantly cutting charging times at each stop.

Finally, Musk's driving logs from the Model S show that Broder had taken a long detour in Manhattan, and upon reaching Milford, Connecticut (where the range display said 0 miles), he drove the car in circles in a for over a half mile in a tiny parking lot. The Model S wouldn't give in and die, so Broder finally took it to the charging station.

Musk added that Broder was biased against electric vehicles from the start, and had set out to make the Model S fail before even receiving the car.

"When the facts didn’t suit his opinion, he simply changed the facts," said Musk. "Our request of The New York Times is simple and fair: please investigate this article and determine the truth. You are a news organization where that principle is of paramount importance and what is at stake for sustainable transport is simply too important to the world to ignore."

Broder, who had his article published last week, was given a Model S sedan with an EPA rated 265-mile estimated range with an 85-kilowatt battery pack. He traveled from the Washington area in Maryland to Norwich, Connecticut, with many stops in between including Newark, Delaware; New York City; Milford, Connecticut; Branford, Connecticut and Groton, Connecticut.

During his trip, Broder mentioned many instances where the battery suddenly depleted quickly and he had to call Tesla for assistance on how to maximize range between charging stops (which were about 200 miles apart from one another or less during the trip). He said he received different advice from different Tesla employees, and even bad advice from one that said to sit in the car for half an hour with the heat on a low setting in order to warm the battery after it depleted from an overnight stay in Groton. At one point, Broder said the car even needed to be towed in Branford because the battery drained much sooner than anticipated.

The issue isn't cabin temp, its that the user lied about the actual usage he reported on.

That's scummy, but that said, it indirectly highlight s the pain in the ass that is actually using a vehicle of this nature.

The majority of corners cut were because its annoying as hell that you must go 45-55 for optimal distance which is extremely counter to how a naturally aspirated engine performs (greater speed tends to enable greater milage to a point), and its probably more annoying that to 'fill up the tank' you must reserve an hour of your time vs 5 minutes, and if you skimp out even 10 minutes you severely impact your mileage.

These vehicles have come a LONG way and I can appreciate that as a tech enthusiast and an auto enthusiast (the distinction is getting harder to make) but from a consumer perspective, this is trash.

Think that small EV, or 500cc vehicles like the Twizy (but wit more comfort) are the future, as we don't need big 4x4's whit V8's to go to work alone, as petrol is just getting to expensive to waste on those guzzlers.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I've actually been very open minded towards EVs but this article in particular indirectly highlighted a cruel reality in the current state of the tech, at least how it is applied in the Tesla models.

I've never heard of Think City, probably because it doesn't have a presence in the USA (does it?).

I'll look into that. Certainly if one brand performs poorly, it isn't indicitive of the technology as a whole showing no promise. However, I thought Tesla was one of the top-performers in this area. If so, that's not saying much IMO.

You make reasonable points about limitations with electric cars, but it doesn't absolve the reviewer of the breach of journalistic ethics that he committed. He was trying to say that the car didn't perform as Tesla said it should, it would appear that this was a lie. Whether or not you or the reviewer can abide the limitations of electric vehicles is irrelevant, the car's performance is (by the looks of the evidence) as advertised, and that's the primary issue.

I'm not 100% sure the evidence here can prove without a doubt that the reporter lied. The evidence comes from Tesla - a biased party - that could have potentially tampered with it to protect themselves.

The third party statement that the car was in fact "dead" when it was getting towed makes me question the credibility of Tesla's statements.

Right -- Resistance from air (which the engine/motor must overcome) is about the square of speed.

It is possible to gear a car such that it gets better mileage at 75MPH than 50, but that would be due to inefficient gearing (it isn't that the car is so much more efficient at 75MPH, it's that it has to run at a strangely high RPM at 50MPH).The most efficient speed for most cars with gear transmissions is probably just over the minimum cruising speed at the highest gear, though automotive engineers may want to chime in if I am missing important variables.

Most cars with a single overdrive gear usually around 30% overdriven get their best milage around 55mph. Some newer cars have an even higher overdrive, sixth great in a corvette is right around 50%, will get better gas milage at higher speeds.

Higher overdrive gearings don't raise that. It just reduces the mileage dropoff at higher speeds. Sivar is correct. If a car's best mileage is at a higher speed, it doesn't mean least resistance is at that higher speed. It just means the car has crappy gearing for the lower speed, and you probably shouldn't buy it.

Thanks for pointing out that alternative interpretation of what I wrote. My fault for not being more clear about what exactly I meant.

If you calculate purely based on instantaneous resistance or resistance over time, the fuel efficiency equivalency you're calculating is gallons consumed per hour.

That's not what we're after here. We're after gallons per mile, since the objective is to travel between point A and point B using the least fuel. So the resistance figure you want is resistance per distance covered.

If you do that for air, rolling, and engine friction, the minimum ends up being around 45-50 mph. Consequently your best mileage (assuming ideal gearing) is at those speeds. This is in contrast to gallons per hour, where your lowest fuel consumption happens at (obviously) 0 mph.

I dont think anywhere it was stated that you can only go 45. The issue is that the article claimed that he had the cruise set at 45, when he obviously did not. The article is full of lies from top to bottom, and that is what Musk has a problem with.

You mention that it is counter intuitive from an ICE is actually false, as the only time it is better to go faster is to the point where your car switches into its highest gear (typically around 45mph). After that point, the wind resistance very much eats away at your mpg, but most people do not care, as they would rather get where they are going faster and pay the extra.

According to the data from Musk, the writer even drove around in circles to try and completely make the car stall, which further seems to show that he was trying to make a sensationalistic piece just to try and get readers. If what Musk is saying is true, and I have no reason to not believe it, the article belongs in National Enquirer along with alien abductions, and not in the NYT.

If I were the New York Times, I would be planning a HUGE apology to Tesla right about now. And also working out how to fire John Broder in the most public and embarrassing manner possible and claw back whatever I paid him to write that article.

This is a major legal headache for the NYT. If Tesla can prove from the logs that the NYT outright lied about the Model S's performance, then the only real question in the libel suit will be how much the NYT should pay.

I agreed and upvoted this before replying but feel obliged to add: the modern media does not admit wrong. They feel entitled to define truth for everyone; if the facts don't fit the reporting, then alter the facts until they fit.

When I was a kid and read Huxley and Orwell, I thought that people might take those words as instruction manuals. Guess I was right.

Heating the cabin takes a lot of power. It's somewhere like 2000W at warmup and 600W just to maintain the temperature. People are advised to lower the cabin temperature and use the seat heaters which are more efficient than heating the air.

On one hand you have Elon Musk who has a financial interest in his company defending his product.

On the other you have a newpaper with a financial interest in writing the most shocking story possible. One which has had multiple issues in the recent history with fact checking its reporters stories.

The "smoking" gun in this situation would be that the Reporter himself claimed the Model S went 51 miles when it read 32 miles of range. The Reporter himself claimed to set out on a 60+ mile journey with 32 miles of reported range. The -only- way this makes sense is if the reporter ment "72" miles instead of 32. But he hasn't declared his own mistake yet.

If they wanted to shock someone, a story about EV's being less practical than ICE's isn't what I would call shocking. Especially given the weather conditions.

I'm not saying the logs are faked. I just thought someone should point out the possibility. I saw everyone here taking the logs for granted, so I figured I would be "that guy" again and use the dreaded 'critical thinking'.

Musk seems to be nitpicking, big time. He's basically accusing the guy of not doing every single thing possible to baby the car. Including bashing someone for not documenting the use of cabin heaters? Who does that? I can't recall the CEO of another car company lambasting the media because they didn't hypermile their vehicle. Which is what Musk is pretty much saying with all this "you didn't hypermile the car so it looked better than it did"

I'm in heaven either way on this. If Musk wins, FINALLY the credibility of the so-called "media" gets questioned by a few more people than the same "right wingers". If Musk loses, that's strike three in his attempt to sue his way to favorable reviews. If indeed this ends up in court. Which I believe would be a huge mistake.

Musk is not nitpicking that by driving at 74 instead of 72 the car lost range, but that the reporter is [b]outright lying[/b]. The reporter claimed he was forced to turn down the temperature but he had actually increased it.

The other thing is that the reporter is either an idiot or outright sabotaging. How else do you explain trying to do a 61 mile leg when the display says 32 miles left? How else do you explain doing small loops for half a mile in a parking lot?

quote: How else do you explain doing small loops for half a mile in a parking lot?

It's fun?

I do that all the time in my car. Impreza doughnuts ftw! Then I go and gas up, which takes 3 minutes tops. It the Tesla can't do the same, it's inferior clearly.

quote: The reporter claimed he was forced to turn down the temperature but he had actually increased it.

Who cares? Why is the environmental controls a factor here (rhetorical, I know why)? They aren't in EVERY OTHER car article/review.

See what Musk is doing here? By going after the media and breaking down this stuff into such detail, he's actually further informing the general public about just how many pitfalls and inconveniences are involved with owning his product. Good going!

Can't help but agree that when I started reading this, I was like 'go Tesla' until indirectly, what I learned was that what required of the user to properly use there vehicle is silly and it kind of highlights how the target demographic is completely misaligned with the price tag.

What's worse, it seems terribly inconvenient. Getting people to pay a premium for cons in nearly every other way other than feeling 'good' is strange. How 'good' can an owner feel about themself when they just spent 3 times more tthan he needed to achieve 'economic' results.

Honda Fit sucks, but it seems to be infinitely more economical and reliable than the Tesla's overall. Not as stylish, but I mean they aren't buying the Tesla for style right? Oh wait, they are, just not body style, more like 'cool points'.

If the internal cabin temp has to be adjusted to accomodate for battery temps, holy crap thats awful.

Yes, the guy who wrote the article is clearly scummy. He could have at least fulfilled his end of the deal and then told the attrocious story through the eyes of someone who did their best and hated the car anyways.

Actually I think he told the truth about the temperature settings. If you look at the start of the mileage log, it's about 5 miles before the charge to full. So Tesla is probably counting mileage from when the car left their hands. The reporter is more likely counting mileage from when his trip began. So 5 miles to get it home and charge it overnight. Then looking at the speed logs it looked like he drove around town for 15-20 miles before getting on the highway and actually starting his trip.

So 182 miles into the trip is probably around 205 miles on Tesla's logs, which matches up almost exactly with when he said he turned the heat down.

The reported speed (54 mph) I can sorta forgive. IIRC the speed limit in New York is 55 mph. No reporter is going to publish in a national newspaper that they broke the law.

OTOH there's a big dip in battery charge at around 400 miles. From the temperature and speed graphs, it looks like he parked the car and ran the heater trying to drain down the battery.

quote: You have to watch out for the temp you have the INSIDE the car?? When it's -20F I'm not paying attention to how long or what the temp in inside the car. IT NEEDS to be warm.

One of the best features of an electric car is that, if the car is plugged in at an outlet, you can set the car to warm up automatically without even being in it.

The journalist in question drove an electric car in the middle of winter and decided to only stay at places that would not let him plug in.

The journalist essentially set out to create a situation the Model S would fail in that seemed "commonplace". Based on Tesla's data, he did not succeed. I am not sure why he couldn't have just done the logical things and pointed out how bothersome they were. (IE, the Superchargers give ~4 miles/minute. To drive 61 miles means he would have had to wait at the charger for 15+ minutes! A good 10 minutes longer than an out of gas car. Or how about the struggle to find a hotel that allows plug-ins?)